SNe Ia, Implications, Interpretations, Lambda-CDM...

[bigsam1965]

All physics is contingent and a healthy amount of skepticism is always wise. Other explanations are possible, although all of the alternative explanations I have seen have problems (see Ned Wright's website). I have remained conservative in my critique of the standard model. Remaining within the context of the general class of Friedmann-Lemaitre solutions, I noticed a problem with the standard model use of the energy-flux equation. When I corrected the problem, the resulting Friedmann-Lemaitre solution is in agreement with three areas of physical observation. IMHO this has stengthened the case for the Big Bang .

Originally Posted by coldcreation

What would be the correct form of the equation to use?

CC

For conservation of photon energy as space expands and a coasting universe the correct energy-flux equation should be



Dividing the energy-flux equation by the reference energy flux, then taking the log of the energy-flux ratio, then multiplying by -2.5 leads to Equation (4) in the original post.

[Little Bang]

Ok I have a question. Let's assume for this question that the universe is expanding at C and that Z is the result of that expansion. Would there be a way that we could determine the rate of change of the wave length over time. EMR in the early universe would be 10^googleplex Hertz. Over X amount of time let's say it would be 10^100. Could we determine the rate of change?

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by bigsam1965

All physics is contingent and a healthy amount of skepticism is always wise. Other explanations are possible, although all of the alternative explanations I have seen have problems (see Ned Wright's website). I have remained conservative in my critique of the standard model. Remaining within the context of the general class of Friedmann-Lemaitre solutions, I noticed a problem with the standard model use of the energy-flux equation. When I corrected the problem, the resulting Friedmann-Lemaitre solution is in agreement with three areas of physical observation. IMHO this has stengthened the case for the Big Bang.

What are the three areas of physical observation that your FL solution is in agreement with?

If I understand, you reduce the dark energy content, but do you eliminate it? What about cold dark matter?

Anything that could get rid of DE & CDM would be an improvement - strengthening the case for the BB.

Originally Posted by bigsam1965

For conservation of photon energy as space expands and a coasting universe the correct energy-flux equation should be



Dividing the energy-flux equation by the reference energy flux, then taking the log of the energy-flux ratio, then multiplying by -2.5 leads to Equation (4) in the original post.

CC

[modest]

Sam,

It is a pleasure. I am a novice at GR so go easy on me.

How am I not allowed to compare observed flux to intrinsic luminosity here:

but I can compare observed luminosity to intrinsic luninosity here?:


Algebraically and conceptually I see no difference.

-modest

[bigsam1965]

Originally Posted by modest

Sam,

It is a pleasure. I am a novice at GR so go easy on me.

How am I not allowed to compare observed flux to intrinsic luminosity here:

but I can compare observed luminosity to intrinsic luninosity here?:


Algebraically and conceptually I see no difference.

-modest

There is nothing wrong with what you have done, as long as you understand that the problem is when is solved for in the FL metric instead of . The FL metric should solve for the actual dilated distance, not the luminosity distance. The luminosity distance has a component due to the effective luminosity being reduced because of the expansion of space; therefore, the luminosity distance is larger than the actual distance.

[bigsam1965]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

What are the three areas of physical observation that your FL solution is in agreement with?

If I understand, you reduce the dark energy content, but do you eliminate it? What about cold dark matter?

Anything that could get rid of DE & CDM would be an improvement - strengthening the case for the BB.

CC

Actually there are four areas

1. Agreement with SNe Ia Hubble diagram
2. Agreement with the galaxy-count surve.ys of the Durham group.
3. Agreement with the CMB results from WMAP.
4. Hubble Constant of the Sandage consortium using variable Cepheids and other methods. (May the great Allen Sandage forgive me for not thinking of his work)

Certainly, dark energy as a cause of acceleration has vanished in the model. However, due to the dilation effect on the image that an observer sees that is caused by the expansion of space, a dilated mass/energy of the source image occurs. This dilated mass/energy (dark mass/energy) is an effect of expanding space, not a cause of acceleration.

This discussion about dark matter in galaxies has some speculation in it. More research needs to be done in this area by the Durham Group. As far as dark matter in galaxies is concerned, the dark matter is real, but I suspect that the dark matter is Baryonic matter in the K-band (2.2 microns). The reasoning goes like this. From the Durham counts, there are far more galaxies in the K-band of the galaxy-count surveys than the other color-band galaxy counts combined. The stars and near-stars of the K-band require far more mass for the same luminosity that stars in the other color-bands produce. From the proposed model and the K-band galaxy counts the median luminosity of K-Band galaxies is approximately 100 billion solar luminosities. Also, from the K-band galaxy counts and the mass from my model, the median mass of a K-band galaxy is approximately 1.33 trillion solar masses(this number may be reduced by approximately 10% to account for the other color-band stars). Thus, there is approximately a median 12 times more mass in the K-band of stars than indicated by the luminosity. Gravitational lensing indicates that this mass/luminosity ratio is more or less close to what is observed. One caveat should be pointed out: unlike the other color-band galaxies, K-band galaxy counts start falling off rapidly around a median redshift of 0.2, indicating that K-band stars started forming later than the other color-band galaxy stars.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by bigsam1965

Actually there are four areas

1. Agreement with SNe Ia Hubble diagram
2. Agreement with the galaxy-count surve.ys of the Durham group.
3. Agreement with the CMB results from WMAP.
4. Hubble Constant of the Sandage consortium using variable Cepheids and other methods. (May the great Allen Sandage forgive me for not thinking of his work)...

Actually, there is another area that your FL solution is in agreement with:

5. The age of stars vs. the age of the universe.

With your 17.16 Gyr old universe, the age of the oldest stars seems reconciled, at least according to R-Process Abundances and Chronometers in Metal-Poor Stars" by J.J. Cowan (et al), compared with the theoretical ratio suggesting an average age of two metal poor stars to be approximately 15.6 +/- 4.6 Gyr (between 11 Gyr and 20.2 Gyr), consistent with earlier radioactive age estimates.

Arguably, a 13.7 Gyr old universe model had great difficulty absorbing this kind of data (without assuming extraordinarily rapid star formation from primordial density fluctuations post-BB.



CC

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by modest

The person's name completely escapes me at the moment and this may not be accurate as I read it many years ago and my memory of it is incomplete at best, but:

The very very first person to discover "the de Sitter effect" was ____. He did so by analyzing how much of one stars light would be received by another star. He found that the light dropped of non-linearly in de Sitter's metric and this is eventually called the de Sitter effect - or maybe he named it that (I don't know).

It seems to me that what he must have worked out was a brightness to distance function for de Sitter's original model. He was not solving for redshift, I remember that much.

If apparent and intrinsic brightness are to be presented very much differently with "de Sitter time" then perhaps we could get a hold of that paper. If I am right, it would have exactly what is needed.

-modest

I was under the impression that the first person to discover "the de Sitter effect" was de Sitter himself.

Or maybe you were thinking of von Laue, Lanczos, Mc Vittie, Slipher, Milne, Mie, Weyl or Eddington? The latter seems most likely. I'll see if I can find something.



CC

[modest]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

I was under the impression that the first person to discover "the de Sitter effect" was de Sitter himself.

Or maybe you were thinking of von Laue, Lanczos, Mc Vittie, Slipher, Milne, Mie, Weyl or Eddington? The latter seems most likely. I'll see if I can find something.

I've decided my memory of the paper I looked at some years ago is flawed. I apologize for bringing it up and sharing my confusion with others.

But, thank you CC

-modest

[modest]

Originally Posted by bigsam1965

Now, for a static universe, and ; therefore, the energy-flux equation for a static universe is




Equation (1) is the energy-flux equation used in the standard model (Riess et al. 2004, Perlmutter&Schmidt 2003). Equation (1) leads to the distance modulus equation:

Sam,

For our purposes this equation works fine.

A supernova in static space delivers an equal number of photons to earth as an equally distant supernova in expanding space. The photons will be redshifted and time dilated but equal in number. Because supernova only last so long and have a characteristic light curve this can be and is accounted for.

-modest